After talking in a vaporwave thread recently I just realised how dreadful future funk actually is.
"The good thing about vaporwave was that it took incidental music (something we'd hear a lot but never actively listen to) and made it drugged out and likeable, and made a new song.
But future funk just takes funk singles and does practically nothing to them. There's no reason not to just go hear the original singles. You hear one of the things from ArtzieMusic and the lack of editing was outrageous, it's essentially stealing."
For instance. Listen to this track (an 80's funk single created by artist Tavares):
and then listen to this future funk track that "samples" it:
What do you realise? There's pretty much zero change - "rxtlxck" has lifted this whole phrase and put it out under his own name. The name for that is theft - and you can pretty much go through any future funk "artist"'s catalog and find dozens of parallels to this example.
How does this shit fly? Coldplay plunged into shit after a motif of theirs sounded /vaguely/ similar to a Joe Satriani song, yet these guys are still taking credit for - and even charging for in the case of people like Macross and Yung Bae, which is disgusting - music they didn't make. It just boggles the mind. I don't understand how they don't get sued.
I invite any fan of future funk to explain what the draw is over the singles, and how you can possibly support what is basically outright plagiarism.
Better vaporware here:
Sampling is an art when it treats the sample as a tool to create something new and different to the original sample, not just slapping a beat on a track that you treat as one big sample and call it a day after that.
Whether or not they make money isn't really the primary point being brought up - it's the fact that these guys pretty much steal music instead of making their own original stuff, and people praise them to the skies over it. That shit is backwards.
That's a good point, but they still make some money - for instance Yung Bae sells songs for a dollar a pop on Bandcamp - which the original label doesn't really have a reason to NOT demand that they pay them some royalties.
>sampling isn't making music
>le sampling is stealing!!! xD
do you realize how much skill it takes to take a small clip of music, change the pitch/sound, and insert it among a bunch of other different instrument samples to create a whole new song?
70s/80s funk is corny shit, future funk chops and screws it and adds new drums, synths, and bass instrumentation and updates this old dead forgotten music for the new generation who would have never listened to it otherwise.
think of a band like daft punk. daft punk do the same exact shit you're ragging these future funk kids for, but they're universally regarded as one of the best electronic acts of all time and nobody calls them out for it because they make it sound good.
>future funk chops and screws it
No, it doesn't, and I invite you to post a future funk song that actually DOES change the motifs of its sample to create something truly new (as a chopped and screwed song would imply).
except future funk doesn't take a small clip and put in the context of another song, it just takes the song and slows it down and adds a drum kick
I do appreciate it for introducing me to 80s jap city pop/funk music tho. That shit's legit fire and better than anything soundcloud fuccbois could produce.
Maybe on here, but literally everywhere else they're praised. They're a mainstream pop band that virtually everyone knows and get big coverage in old jew media like Rolling Stone and shit. Plus the hip indie crowd loves their old stuff along with the elitist RYM-types. Daft Punk do pretty much the same shit and if they came around in 2012 and not '96 they'd be called future funk and named Daft420フランスの同性盗みます or some shit.
>vaporwave kids using the "lel if u criticize vaporwave u hate sampling in general and are a grandpa elitist snob xP" meme again
Consult jungle for a genre based around sampling the same couple of tracks that manages to not sound completely like the tracks it samples. Then take a look at vaporwave again.
hey op this is you reevaluate your life
The difference between Daft Punk and any future funk producer is that Daft Punk actually make a new song from the stuff they sample. Future funk takes the entire melody and calls it their own.
Precisely this, although vaporwave at least does SOME kind of editing. It tells you something about future funk when it's a poor version OF a poor version of sample-based music.
>poor version of sample-based music
Confirmed for having heard a few songs and writing it off.
Read the OP again - I LIKE vaporwave. But nobody can deny that it does use significantly fewer (and less creative) sampling techniques than your neighbourhood Negativland/Ground-Zero/DJ Shadow.
But readymades just lift everyday objects. Future funk lifts a unique song, created by an artist. That's a big difference. And I doubt Duchamp is claiming to have invented the object.
I see what your getting at, but I feel (and I think this is part of the "big picture" of vaporwave) that the "unique songs" these artists are lifting can be seen as everyday objects. Sure more creativity into making them than a toilet or sink, but to me part of vaporwave is pointing out that a lot of commercial music of the 20th century is similar to these objects in that they are designed to serve a specific function, be it profit, mesmerizing the audience (think samples from advertisements), or making the inhabitants of a club dance.
>they are designed to serve a specific function
But that's where the fundamental difference lies, as described in the OP. Vaporwave repurposes its sample so that it goes from being forgettable background music to something you'd pull your attention towards. Future funk takes a danceable track and... well, doesn't turn it into anything different. "Pointing out" effectively means "redirection", and they shouldn't be passing it off as their own music.
Oh yeah, someone did mention this as being a step ahead of the game, actually. Do you have any links to the source material?
Nice, that's pretty good, they use that so it's like a hip hop beat but keeps the funk. But if anything it highlights the problem - why are Yung Bae and Macross the forefront of the genre when stuff like this is clearly more creative? It's so backwards.
Because Yung Bae and Macross were the first to do it along with Saint Pepsi and they just kinda took off. The Moe Shop album came out in the summer I think and those guys were doing shit in like 2012-2013.
That shouldn't be the be-all-end-all, though. Like when 2814's album came out it was widely appreciated for the new approach to vaporwave. It's telling that future funk fans don't recognise the equivalents for their genre... but hey.
First off I totally understand that about 95 of future funk can be pretty badly produced, easily stuck together disco edits that 16 year old bedroom producers are making all over the world, but there is a population of artists within the scene which make decent, well chopped, well produced tracks, that may end up sounding like a completely different track. Then again what is futurefunk? just another word for a subgenre of french house music, taking particular inspiration from asian pop music and old 80s tracks which employ heavy use of sampling and side chain compression. There is shit music in all genres.
yo kids have autism these days, a lot more than usual, stuff like future funk will exist because of this, oh well
i really like the genre name
"future funk" it's so funny
like i put vengeance essential electro vol. 2 snare over tavares song this is now
so autistic love that memory
dude you are literally an anime bandwagoning white boy! lol "future funk" lmfao all of these future funk producers the funniest thing ever is go on artzie music and he lists the
instagrams/social media profiles of every "future vaper funk artist"
they all look so autistic it's hilarious
vhs effect selfies lmfao
yall niggas need to be cyberbullied off that internet fo real yall niggas ugly af
i like it, it's not the most, shall we say, ethical genre ever. But good artists I.E. saint pepsi can actually make some change to the tracks.
It's like French House, but less detailed, I guess.
literally porter robinson's autistic cousin
I don't even listen to rap, but saying sampling can't create art is like saying "cutting up a painting and creating a whole new picture with the scraps isn't your piece of art because it was made of someone else's art" It is just very shallow thinking...